Transparency and the two types of speakers


Over my many years in this hobby, I have bounced back and forth between two broad types of sound from speakers. The first type has a great deal of transparency, by which I mean they are very revealing of what comes before them (equipment, recording quality). This is not everyone's definition of transparency, but it's mine, at least for this topic. I used Quad 57's for many years and have owned Thiels and speakers from Green Mountain, all of which possess this quality. Clarity and focus and detail generally go along with this form of transparency. I'm drawn to these qualiities, and I certainly appreciate them when I evaluate components and cables.

I'm also drawn to a different type of speaker, one that creates beautiful sound but is not as transparent to what comes before it. In the past few years, this would include speakers from ProAc and Harbeth. It would also include the Dynaudio Focus 140's I put in my system yesterday, which was the catalyst for starting this thread. The Dynaudios had been in my video system since I got them, replacing the GMA Europas, which I inserted into the main music system in place of my Harbeths. I was aware that the Dynaudios sounded warmer and less focused in the video system than the Euopas had (and boy, they took forever to break in), but this difference was nonetheless quite striking when I put the Dyn's in the music system yesterday. These Dynaudios do not sound like what I recall of the higher-end Dynaudio speakers of the past few years, which have always impressed me as being exceptionally neutral and possessing a fair bit of the transparency I talked about above. The 140s are instead very warm and everything sounds seductively beautiful (in a convincing, musical way) through them. But they have less of the focus, clarity and transparency. I love listening to them and expect they'll stay in the system for a while until I start craving transparency again, which I surely will.

Before you start telling me which speakers I should try in order to get the best of both worlds, let me say that my primary interest in starting this topic was not to ask for advice but to have a conversation about this tradeoff with like-minded audiophiles: is it just me, or is this a tradeoff that others of you are aware of and struggle with?

It's a bit of a review cliche to say, "If I were an ordinary audiophle and music lover, I would opt for [such and such], but as a reviewer, I need a component that is more revealing of associated equipment and... blah blah." But that is the dilemma. I want the former sometimes and the later other times.

By the way, the speakers I am currently using that I mentioned above are not commensurate with the rest of my system in terms of price level and probably quality, and I know this. Right now, I prefer to play with small, relatively inexpensive over-achievers (with a sub) while I figure out where to go next.
Ag insider logo xs@2xdrubin
Drubin: I hear ya!-Loud and clear. Almost 40 years into this hobby and my speaker of choice is a 1992 Essence refrence Super gem, with intuitive audio upgrades. A two-way, time-aligned, first-order x-over, 70 lb. box that over the years has stayed. I have owned 'stats, maggies, dunlavy's-all more trannsparent-but-in the long run not as musical as a truy well-designed 2-way. Spooky in their sound staging capabilities, tonality and harmonic correctness-yet sublety warm with a butterscotch sweetness that is addictive. Did I mention that a good dome tweeter takes about 5 years to break-in and become the warm, bloomy, vibrant, tweeter it was meant to be. Maybe more neubophiles would not be in such a rush to dump their equipment "if they gave it time to mature".
it is possible to get transparency from your dyn audio speakers, just as it is possible to get "beauty" from the quad 57. it depends upon the cd player, amp, pre amp and cables. you can have one speaker system and a variety of electronics.

i favor panel speakers because i find cone designs hard to live with after a few weeks. driver and enclosure colorations bother me.

i look to "defocus" a panel speaker to make it more euphonic, as i believe in the "golden mean".
Drubin,
There's a reason why we keep changing equipment. Sometimes it's not that this is 'better' than that but rather this is 'different' from that. Since even a small cable can alter the sound to considerable effect, one can only imagine the endless of choices in pairing of equipment such as amps and speakers etc. I am equally at home with speaker A or speaker B driven by amplifier C.

You are not alone in this buddy.
I guess I respectfully disagree with Mrtennis on this. Yes, of course you can warm up a system, but that's not what IO'm talking about. If a speaker is not transparent in the way I have defined the term, I've yet to figure out how to make it so. Since you seem to have lived mainly with panel speakers, which usually fall in the transparency camp, you probably have not had to deal with this.
Drubin,

I think your observations are valid. Many speakers obviously sound good, but without transparency, in they sound like "speakers".

I would be so bold enough to suggest however that a speaker must have a good "transparency factor" in order to achieve the ideal of simulating what a live performance sounds like when nicely produced in a live venue. This is not so much a factor in perhaps rock or pop music which might sound very much closer to what you might hear live through speakers that are not "transparent".

With my Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkII monitors, specifically, I can vouch that a recent change to a Musical Fidelity A3CR amp produced a much more "transparent" sound than the Carver amp that preceded it. With the Carver, at least in the smaller room I use these in, I used to rely on processing tricks like Carver's sonic holography to achieve the transparency I was looking for...but this is no longer needed with the MF.