Best Loudspeakers for Rich Timbre?

The tube cult is a relatively small club compared to the rest but has a strong presence here. That’s probably why you hear more in general here about products that are popular with tube gear. Where as Magico is nice and sounds very good but expensive and lots of competition so does not get as much universal accolades, even if perhaps they might be deserved. The build quality of Magico’s I have seen and heard is top notch. So is the sound but hey there are so many other top notch sounds I hear also often for much lower cost.
BTW I have auditioned and know Magico’s sound very good with very good higher powered tube gear to match but few may afford or even want to have to deal with that kind of combo even if they can afford it. Big tube amps use lots of power, throw off a lot of heat, and are harder and more costly to maintain. High TCO. Not for everyone.
Smaller tube amps with higher efficiency, easy to drive speakers (not nearly as many out there to choose from) is way more practical for many. So you hear a lot about the likes of Tekton and others. Of course full range high efficiency speakers tend to be bigger and bulkier than most so no panacea there either.

@prof

I suggest you watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2pvz6RDBCE

It will explain to you some facts; they correlates perfectly with what mheinze is trying to say (Unfortunately, JA can not be trusted when it comes to UK made loudspeakers, read the comments on his ridicules conclusion, they are much more in line with reality).

For someone who puts so much time in to this hobby (or at least writing about it), some education may go a long way; you should give it a try, your long posts will be much more interesting and relevant.

sciencecop,

You’ve got to be kidding.

So in response to my post, you are giving a link to one speaker manufacturer’s claims for "why our design is better?????"

As if that weren’t standard for pretty much every manufacturer/speaker designer to claim?

That’s a classic bit of advertisement of the type that can be found by most speaker manufacturers. You have the Vandersteen cone pitted against some selected "unnamed" paper cone, and oh-my-gosh, can you believe it? Look how bad the selected-unnamed-cone compares to OUR cone?

And, as if Vandersteen were the only speaker manufacturer that recognizes the desire for an evenly pistonic cone material????

Of course speaker manufacturers recognize the relevance, that’s why so many brag about the pistonic behaviour of their speaker drivers! Including Harbeth who make a big deal about precisely this engineering goal for their Radial driver. This idea is hardly a revelation.

And why are you posting a comparison between a Vandersteen driver and an unnamed PAPER CONE driver, as if it made mheinze’s point, when the Harbeth speakers use a POLYPROPYLENE cone of their own polymer design, specifically engineered toward attaining lower coloration through highly pistonic behaviour????

And the Stereophile measurements indicate that the Harbeth Radial driver is indeed low in coloration.

And you think all this "correlates perfectly" with the claims I’m objecting to like Harbeth speakers only producing "50% of the resolution?"

Do you want to point us towards measurements showing Harbeth speakers are only giving "50%" of the resolution of the audio signal vs Magico?..or do you think promotional videos from one speaker company comparing their driver to unnamed paper drivers actually make this case? If so, you’ve got a wonky idea of evidence and argument.

Nowhere am I claiming that Harbeth speakers are the best designs.  I've been objecting to the over-board claims that they are "low resolution" and even sillier, only give "50%" of the resolution.   Speaker design is about balancing compromises, and most speaker drivers/designs balance various compromises. The trick is how it all comes out in the mix, and the Harbeth design seems to have balanced these engineering problems quite well.

For someone who puts so much time in to this hobby (or at least writing about it), some education may go a long way; you should give it a try, your long posts will be much more interesting and relevant.

Oh, please.

Should you post something of greater relevance, that actually undermines anything I’ve written, then I’ll heed your gracious advice.

I was hoping that the very simple explanation of why a speaker cone should be pistonic will enlighten you (this has nothing to do with Vandersteen, he just happened to explain it well). These are all very basic concept of physics, but you have to embrace real science first, which I now understand you are not willing (or capable) of doing. 

 BTW, "POLYPROPYLENE" cones are actually much worse, i.e less pistonic,  then harden "PAPER CONE", which is what typically is used in today drivers.

sciencecop,

You are being evasive, not "educational" which suggests "education" isn’t your actual motivation in responding to my posts.

Of course, nothing in what I’ve posted abandons "real science." That’s just a flip remark to try to make yourself feel superior without bothering to justify that claim.

As I said, I’m well aware...like pretty much anyone who has followed high end audio...that speaker designers have long understood the benefits of pistonic behaviour in drivers. Simply repeating, even after I pointed that out, that you think you are "enlightening" me on this idea is simply ignoring my reply to continue subtle chest-puffing on your part.

You’ve simply evaded the actual points I’ve raised. I have objected to mheinze’s over-board claims that Harbeth speakers are "low resolution" designs and only give "50%" resolution (talk about claims pulled out of one’s arse).

Pretty much all drivers have compromises of one sort or another, which is why various types are used by manufacturers, and debated among the DIY speaker crowd.

But we are talking about claims made against a SPECIFIC speaker company, Harbeth.

Every speaker designer chooses a driver for the characteristics that are desirable for their goal, while minimizing the flaws. Harbeth claims to have spent many years and lots of money to minimize the flaws of a polypropylene driver, increasing stiffness and pistonic behaviour, while maintaining the desirable characteristics, all with the goal of a low coloration speaker design.

Now, if YOU claim, along with mheinze that Harbeth has FAILED in that design goal, and that Harbeth speakers are in fact "low resolution" speakers or only produce "50%" resolution, then you need to show this, rather than post links to the performance of some other unnamed speaker manufacturer’s paper cone, as if THAT demonstrated your case.

For my part, I’ve actually supplied links to actual 3rd party measurements of the Harbeth SuperHL5 plus, and despite your (unevidenced) claim about whatever bias Atkinson may have, he has supplied measurements in support of his remarks that indicate low coloration in the Radial driver in particular, and a balanced well designed speaker in general.

But while we are waiting on you supplying actual evidence against this, how about some more 3rd party evidence in support of the excellence of the Harbeth speaker design.

From this review:

http://i.nextmedia.com.au/Assets/harbeth_super_hl5_plus_speakers_review_test_lores.pdf

Listening impressions from the reviewer:

First impressions are always important, whether it’s people, companies or loudspeak-ers, and my first impression of the Harbeth Super HL5plus was that its sound was amaz-ingly cohesive and stunningly real, very similar to what I hear from full-range designs (Lowther et al) but with none of the bass or treble limitations of full-range loudspeakers. It’s so stunningly real that although I will do so for the purpose of this review, it’s as if the bass, the midrange and the treble no longer exist as separate entities that need to be described as such, but you’re instead just listening to ‘music’—music that’s been freed from the normal transitions that must take place from a bass driver to a midrange driver to a tweeter.

The clarity and detail that are delivered across almost the entire spectrum in which musical instrument fundamentals occur is stunningly good.

From the measurements section:

Harbeth’s Super HL5plus proved to have an extremely smooth and superbly extended frequency response, characterised by a very slight spectral tilt that saw the bass/midrange region very slightly elevated compared to the output at higher frequencies. You can see the evidence of this in Graph 1, which shows the averaged frequency response using pink noise as a test stimulus. It’s important to first note the extension and linearity of the Harbeth Super HL5plus’s response, as measured by Newport Test Labs, because it extends from 45Hz to 40kHz ±3dB—EXTENSION AND LINEARITY THAT ARE, IN MY MEMORY, UNPRECEDENTED.

Be-tween 80Hz and 10kHz the response is within ±1.25dB which is, yet again, a superb result.

--------

To reiterate what I said in the introduction, the extension and linearity of the Harbeth Super HL5plus’s frequency response is in my memory, unprecedented. I’ve seen speakers with better low-frequency extension, speakers with better high-frequency extension, and speakers with greater overall linearity. But the Harbeth Super HL5plus is the first speaker I’ve seen that has been able to deliver all three of these very desirable attributes in the one package. Equally important, it’s done it with a design that’s an easy load for any amplifier to drive and using a cabinet whose dimensions are not even close to being visually intimidating. I’m not sure who to congratulate for this marvellous achievement, the BBC, Dudley Harwood or Alan Shaw... or all three. But whoever was responsible—individually or collectively—congratulations are most certainly due, and even more certainly very well-deserved.

So now I have presented links to two reviews of a speaker FROM THE ACTUAL SPEAKER COMPANY UNDER DEBATE where both listening impressions AND THE MEASUREMENTS indicate a low coloration, faithful presentation of the signal.

So how about, instead of just trying to knock me down a notch, you actually address the points I’ve actually made.

If YOU are claiming to have a scientific case against what I’ve written, show us how those Harbeth speakers in fact produce "low resolution/50% resolution," where the measurements seem to suggest excellent engineering.

Support your claim that I have refused to embrace "real science."

Show how my objections to mheinze’s remarks that Harbeth speakers only produce "50%" resolution, or are low resolution, are unreasonable.