In search for speakers of "natural" sound


Hello,
I am using a pair of Harbeth speakers. However, I am not satisfied with the 'naturalness' of the sound (it could be that I am so demanding). I am looking for a pair of speakers that can produce the more natural and organic sound than Harbeth if there is any.

I know that it depends on the amp, cables, and other variables. However, let's assume that with the appropriate gears, which speakers do you think can produce the "most natural sound"? By "natural", I mean the sound that we hear directly from musical instruments, from the singer without going through any amplification.

There is a user mentioning that speakers from the past used that 'natural sound' as a reference when designed speakers. In contrast, the sound today (even the hi-end one) is to "hi-fi". He guessed it could be less people have chance to listen to live / acoustic music than before.  

Is it right?

Thank you for your experience and recommendation!
Best,
Huy.

P.S: I know that my questions are silly and dumb, please bear with me.


Ag insider logo xs@2xquanghuy147
For naturalness you need a very dynamic and unforgiving speaker. Preferably a pro studio monitor, active or passive. Great suggestions would be ATC, Westlake, Quested, PSI, Unity the Boulder, Barefoot, dual centric Tannoy and many more. Westlake is a "new" favourite of mine. 

Note - with these your bad recordings will sound bad and the good will sound good sometimes fantastic. They will not all sound mediocre as with most HIFI home speakers. Your Harbeth should be ok although being a home speaker. I found it a bit uninspiring. Harbeth also have studio versions. Don't know if they are different. 

If you with natural sound means concert sound, then visit a live venue. I don't want that sound in my home because it's very seldom enjoyable. You don't go to a concet for the sound. Maybe Roger Waters...

Not sure about the open baffle suggestions. Can't think of a speaker technology that interacts more with the room. But would like to try in the future.

Also, as someone already pointed out, try to find the good recordings and skip the bad. Discover new artists that really try to also present a fine sound. There are lots of them. Also the same artist may hav a big spread between good and bad recordings. Sometimes on the same cd. Listening to John Fogerty when writing this and he is a good example. Tidal is great for this.

Just my ideas and Good luck!

Another very nice, open baffle speaker is the Spatial, Hologram M3 Turbo S. Incredibly smooth open and very musical, with a large and convincing stage. At just under $3K, a real bargain in today's market.....Jim
Take a listen to speakers by Vanderstein  or Thiel (used).  Both built only with first order crossovers which provides phase coherence through the crossover regions.  And since both had "music-loving" rather than "hi-fi" sensibilities they tended to avoid anything that didn't sound like real music.  There may be others as well that meet this criteria, but I (and countless others) can attest to the fact that these two manufacturers delived the goods when it came to "natural".

One day I was walking down the street in the French Quarter in New Orleans. Through the slightly-open doorway of a shop I heard the sound of a saxophone. Instantly I could tell that it was a live saxophone instead of a good recording through speakers. I had no line-of-sight to the saxophone, not even close as it turned out. All I could hear was the spectral balance of the reflections, and the dynamic contrast.

I have yet to hear a speaker that struck me as "natural sounding" which did not do a good job in the reverberant field. Bonus points for preserving dynamic contrast, but ime that’s a bit less critical.

Let me try to explain why getting the reverberant field right matters if the goal is "natural sound". First a bit of background: All new incoming sounds go into a short-term memory, and then all sounds are compared with those sounds in the short-term memory. If there is a match, then the sound is a "reflection", and it is largely IGNORED for localization purposes, but INCLUDED for its influence on loudness and timbre and ambience. If there is no match, then it is a NEW SOUND, and the ear/brain system figures out where it’s coming from (localization) and puts it into that short-term memory, so that its subsequent reflections can be correctly classified.

The way that the ear/brain system identifies a reflection is by looking at its SPECTAL CONTENT. If the spectral content of an incoming sound matches that of a sound in the short-term memory, then it’s a reflection. If not, then it’s a new sound. So far, so good.

But what happens when an incoming sound is in between - it kinda matches a sound in that short-term memory, but not very well? This can happen when a speaker’s off-axis response, which is responsible for most of the reflections, has significant glitches. What then? Well, in that case the brain literally has to work harder to correctly classify the incoming sound as a reflection. This extra CPU usage can actually be fatiguing, and can even cause a head-ache. You’ve heard the term "listening fatigue"? This can be one of its causes.

I’m not saying that a spectrally-correct reverberant field is the only thing that matters in the pursuit of natural sound, but imo it is one of the things that matters.  One of the reasons unamplified instruments in a good recital or concert hall sound so delicious and utterly non-fatiguing is that the reverberant field is so well done. 

When auditioning speakers, you may not always have time to find out if listening fatigue sets in. One way to quickly put a spotlight on the spectral balance of the reverberant field is to step outside of the room and listen through the open doorway, with no line-of-sight to the speakers. Does that saxophone still sound real?

Duke

dealer/manufacturer

Typo that I didn’t catch in time; missed an "R": "SPECTAL CONTENT" should have been "SPECTRAL CONTENT".