Looking for thread regarding speaker characteristics, a general discussion

[sunvalleylaw]

Hi. I am pretty much a newb here. Was looking around for a thread concerning what we like in our speaker characteristics. Didn't find one with my searching.

I started liking nice sounding stereos better than the typical Kenwood systems or systems your Dad would buy at the Bon Marche, back in the late 70's into early 80's. So I think my tastes were formed on late 70's, warm sounding hi-fi systems.

The system I chose for myself when I bought my own in the mid-80's (now reborn, http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/my-reborn-system.844830/#post-12128600 ) featured Dahlquist DQM-5 speakers and had to my ears a nice, tight bass, and perhaps a bit of a scooped eq presence.

I liked that way better than the Boston Acoustics sound, the Bose sound (never did understand or care for those, just an ear thing). I did tend to like Advents ok, and liked a lot of Infinity speakers as I recall. Some of the higher end and well built Speakerlab speakers could be nice, especially paired with my buddy's old marantz.

But I can't tell you why I liked what I liked, other than what I just said. Is there a thread? Or shall we start one??

 

[DavePlatt]

I think you did just start a thread on the subject!

I guess I'd characterize my own preferences as "clean and uncolored sound"... nothing particularly exaggerated. My wife and I listen to a rather varied selection of music types, so I don't really want a "rock speaker" or any other that favors a particular genre.

I do seem to like classic fairly-low-Q sealed (or transmission-line) woofer systems, rather than ported systems... I think I notice the somewhat poorer transient response in the bass that ported systems tend to have, even when properly tuned. I do have a passive-radiator-equipped subwoofer (a Definitive Technology 8") as part of the secondary system in the bedroom, and it's lots better than not having a subwoofer (the primaries are Zilch-crossover-modified Minimus 77s) but if I had the room to install a transmission-line or sealed-box subwoofer that would go low enough I'd be sorely tempted to do so. The bass just doesn't seem as clean in the time domain (some might say "quick") as with a good low-Q design.

For more than a decade, my main system was a kit-built pair of Fried B/2 satellites (acoustic-suspension cabinets, with Dynaudio drivers I believe) and a Fried T dual-channel transmission-line subwoofer. Really liked it, although it did suffer from some damage in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Then, when we bought a house, I built a new system to fit the living room - an acoustic-suspension M/T/M array of Scan-Speak drivers, with a side-mounted NHT 1259 subwoofer in a separate sealed section of each tower), and a line-level crossover and biamplification setup. Have had 'em 20 years, don't have any reason to want to change. They're quite capable of rattling things if the recording has honest low bass in it... but when playing something like a guitar-and-vocal recording, you don't hear any more bass than is actually recorded.

I've never liked the Bose sound, myself, dating back to my college years when there was quite a fad among my schoolmates for home-built Bose 901 clones. They had a characteristic sound of their own (both in terms of frequency response, and the rather artificial reflection-based sound pattern they generate) which I never really liked... impressive at times, but it seemed to obscure the details in really good recordings.

 

[Zonker92]

I suppose my top priorities are detail, dynamics, bass extension and clarity. I cherish a lot of headroom, particularly in the bass region. And I value imaging.

 

[E-Stat]

Hi. I am pretty much a newb here. Was looking around for a thread concerning what we like in our speaker characteristics.

There are many characteristics from which to pick: tonal neutrality, bandwidth, phase integrity, directivity, efficiency, output capability and radiation characteristics.

My preference is for full range, dipolar electrostats that radiate as a line source. They are tonally dead neutral, deliver flat in room response to just below 30 hz, are phase linear, have consistent directivity for exceptional coherence and vary little in output level as you move away from them. They cannot, however, deliver rock concert levels which is fine by me.

 

[imral3]

I know I haven't yet heard my forever speaker. But, I would like to hear clean, detailed, accuracy in the reproduction of the entire frequency range.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I have to read through these responses and think about the words used to describe the characteristics. Commonality in language I think would be important, even though everyone will hear things somewhat subjectively. Interesting stuff!

 

[Drugolf]

Hang around these waters long enough and read threads you will start to get a better idea of how one might put different brands and tyipes of speakers into categories. you can of course start with some of the pre-defined classifications like the West Coast sound (JBL), the Boston/New England (AR,Advent, Allison, KLH etc) and the British sound. you could say that starting in the west you have more uncolored studio monitor type sound characteristics and then as you move east and end up in Great Britain you get warmer and subdued. Then you break it all down with type of speaker, size, format etc and you can really narrow a focus on what you might like and look for.

 

[Tom Brennan]

I value clarity, low distortion, subjectively pleasing robust tone with a lifelike or even Technicolor midrange, good dynamics and big image. Since speaker engineers can’t even decide what a perfect speaker should do, much less make one, I make no claims for liking accuracy, as I can’t define it.