2. speakers
  3. 123896-79400

Forward or laid back

To quote a recent comment by a member: "The most salient characteristic (to me) is that the acoustic presentation of some of these speakers seemed quite forward (row D), whereas that of others was really quite laid back (row M). There was also, quite often, a second correlation between that forward presentation and a (relative) brightness in the treble. As far as I can tell, these features are often preferred and indeed seem to be aimed for in the voicing of many models during their development. To my ears, speakers in this category were the Treos, O/93s, and Veneres. Somewhere in the middle were the CM10s and the Liutos. A bit more laid back were the Dynaudios and the Vienna Acoustics"

You may be in the minority but then so am i! However, little do these audiophile misanthropes know that they do not or can not hear or appreciate the sound of an orchestra or a vocalist in a natural concert hall setting!

I agree again on another point. I can not STAND most of these so called " reviewers" who have lynched the press with their stupid ass observations about live acoustic sound and what it is to appreciate its truthfulness. Every word they utter is punch, Liveliness, BOOGIE (lmao) , exciting, drive etc, etc. Is that how a frickin orchestra or a female ( operatic) voice should sound??? I read their source material used and I want to throw up!! ( not because of the music per say , but that this is the material they use to evaluate loudspeakers??? ( Maybe they've picked the wrong hobby..?) They can spend their money on these components and fool themselves into believing this hobby they enjoy (high end audio) is fulfilling their supposedly objective needs; which is all well and good. It's not , however, the" real " sound of unamplified music. 
I guess, in the final evaluation, their " employers" no little either, or why would they adhere to or accept the rantings  of kids who are engulfed in this music for evaluating music reproduction in the home??????
So admittedly, not having heard everything of the newest designs around today, I can still proudly look back and thank a few people ( some gone now) who have truly..... contributed to the development of natural sound reproduction: Nelson Pass, Spencer Hughes, Peter Walker, to name a few!
PS. I used to publish a small subscription newsletter review myself in the early 1980's.

128x128imaging1
imaging1's avatar
imaging1 OP
57 posts
 
My main and essential points are as follows. If we assume a loudspeaker is designed to deliver an essentially flat or neutral response with particular emphasis on the in room characteristics of the reproduction, it would be quite obvious  that Acoustic  instruments and vocals were or should have been the test material that was used for final evaluation. Why?...because people are most familiar with the sound of real instruments and voices. Heavily-processed electronic synthesizers have no real-life reference of naturalness, since those sounds don’t exist in nature. Same thing for movie sound effects—no one knows what an Exploding Death Star or the Enterprise’s warp engines are supposed to sound like, because they don’t exist in real life. If that is a criticism to audiophiles who enjoy and use hard rock and electronic music to evaluate loudspeaker performance,  so be it. I do not trust their opinions.
Simple and to the point!
dave_b's avatar
dave_b
3,159 posts
 
I already covered the essentials of "realistic" sound, but hm1...you are chasing your tail to some extent.  Speakers reproduce everything that comes before them, which is alot!  Systems and how they interact between their constituent parts and environments yeild a resultant sound.  It all matters and how each piece of kit responds is variable and interdependent based upon their individual electrical parameters.  Go listen to a system and decide if it does it for you....or demo your candidates in your home setup.  Basically, it's a crap shoot...good luck and enjoy the journey.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,975 posts
 
hm1 " ... My main and essential points are as follows. If we assume a loudspeaker is designed to deliver an essentially flat or neutral response with particular emphasis on the in room characteristics of the reproduction, it would be quite obvious ..."


This not only isn’t obvious to me, it doesn’t even make sense. It’s as nonsensical as your claim that, " ... if the speaker in your system at home sounds like the amplified electric guitar on stage, you’re not listening to an accurate loudspeaker ..."

Yet, you rail against reviewers, e.g. " I can not STAND most of these so called ’reviewers’ who have lynched the press with their stupid ass observations ..."
whart's avatar
whart
3,052 posts
 
hm1 - with due respect, I think you are still stuck in the '80s. Most of us don't even bother to argue these issues any more. But, don't let me stop you. Thanks for visiting planet audio. 
imaging1's avatar
imaging1 OP
57 posts
 
If I am stuck in the 80's lol... I'm certainly glad that most respected designers and technicians basically still agree with my contentions on how they proceed to define an accurate loudspeaker; wise up!
More to discover