Best Loudspeakers for Rich Timbre?

@mapman , interesting point. Clothes have a function to keep us warm, cover us up, make us look better, define which tribe we belong to etc

Loudspeakers should be attempting to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible. Preferably having as little / zero character of their own. In a perfect world you would have a believable field of sound existing entirely free from it’s source. Should they be a matter of taste?

@fsonicsmith , when I found out that K320s used a ribbon tweeter and were a transmission line design I was surprised. I then began to listen hard for any dispersion anomalies that I had read about with ribbons, I couldn’t hear any. I was also listening out for any hint of sibilance/crossover distortion (hate it) and there was only the mildest amount on Peggy Lee’s Fever. Probably the cleanest treble I have heard on any loudspeaker. It didn’t have the explosive dynamics of the Vivid Kaya 90s, but those were almost scary at volume.

I had to return to the room at the end if the show just to check if I hadn’t imagined it all. They sounded exactly the same, even after I had heard several other designs in between.

If I had the space I would get a pair in white immediately, (hopefully they come with a grille) but my circumstances probably mean selling my current speakers (which are far more childproof) first.

Hmm, what to do?

cd318,

I’m fascinated by the diversity of designs and opinions among speaker designers and audiophiles as well!

It seems to me there are a lot of variables going on here.

First is that both designers and audiophiles come to audio with differing criteria. Some are most focused on, for instance, strict accuracy to the source, reproducing the electrical signal as accurately as possible. Others are more concerned with accuracy to "The Absolute Sound, " in terms of being able to reproduce a sense of reality, and if it takes a bit of fiddling from strict neutrality from the signal to get there, so be it. Others may be more in the "I just want it to sound good" camp, who aren’t demanding strict objective accuracy, who think that The Absolute Sound is a pipe dream, but just hold the criteria of ending up with "sound that satisfies me." Or "does it communicate music in a way that moves me?"

And then there’s the fact that even when you have people generally in one camp as to their criteria, within that camp there will be variations in which compromises are acceptable, which elements most important. So in the "Absolute Sound" and "As I Like It" camps, some may focus on timbral accuracy, others on soundstaging, others on dynamics, etc, so you’ll still end up with different designs. Even those trying to reproduce strict neutrality, accurate reproduction of the source, will have to contend with debates over whether to design the speaker to output a perfectly ’neutral’ flat signal, or how much to take the likely room effects, or even our hearing, in to the design, so it all sums to neutral at our ears. So there are different ways people design speakers to be "neutral" in that regard.

And THEN of course we have the subjectivity of the listener. Especially in the Absolute Sound/As I Like It camps, our hearing may be slightly different, our perception different, or we may even simply of our own preferences zero in on one aspect of the sound we like, where someone else will notice the aspects they don’t like.

I find it fascinating when I sit in front of some systems with a fellow audiophile and they are really happy with what they are hearing, but for me I am nonplussed and would be just as happy with that system turned off (or happier). They may be hearing great clarity and imaging, I’m hearing a bleached tone that leaves me completely unmoved.

So with different approaches, and of course everything in between, naturally we end up with a variety of design ideas, which satisfy varying criteria of audiophiles, naturally we end up with tons of different designs and preferences.

On a similar note:

I often agitate for a more rigorous, science-like approach to high end audio (for products that are essentially engineering problems, way too much of it seems to operate at the level of, say, alternative medicine).
And I certainly would love to see more high end audio equipment produced via more reliable testing/vetting methods, with objective support for claims etc.

BUT...that’s not to say I also don’t quite enjoy some of the Wild West aspect of high end audio, where you have designers trying out all sorts of wild ideas. I’ve certainly heard products whose marketing comes with really dubious design claims, but which sounded really impressive and fascinating nonetheless.

And I’m very glad that there isn’t the homogeneity in high end audio design that is suggested by the attitude of some posters - or manufacturers for that matter who become fixated on "designs ought to be THIS way and NOT that way!" e.g. People who will say things like you should never use X cone materials, or never allow any resonance in the cabinet, or never go with X, Y crossovers, never combine X, Y drivers, etc. A certain single-mindedness and hard-headedness in pursuing a certain design goal can really work for a speaker designer. But in the wider scheme of things, we want people exploring various approaches.

Thanks goodness we have designers trying different approaches. The recent example from my own experience I keep using are the Devore O series speakers. They have been criticized by the neutrality camp for doing everything wrong - "you never combine a tweeter with a 10" driver like that, the beaming! The mismatch, you’ll loose coherence! You don’t let a cabinet sing like that. It’s all just so wrong, any DIYer can even tell you that!"

But when I auditioned them several times against a bunch of more "neutral" speakers, sure some of the defects were likely there in the mix, but not remotely to the overriding audibility the nay-sayers make you fear, and to my ears they were doing SOMETHING really wonderful that most of the other speakers weren’t. (A certain combination of organic tone and body to the sound).

I also like neutral speakers too (as I’ve owned a number of them). But I’m very glad we have other choices!

Having owned Adagios, they are a great speaker, but based upon a long history listening to them, I think that transmission lines mated to mid-woofers tend to have rather bloated, "blubbery" bass at the break-up frequency, right around 45 hz or so. It is easily overlooked, but once you recognize the sound, it is hard to completely ignore. My Devore O/93's don't disappear in the room as well as the Adagios, but they don't break up in the low bass. They are solid as a rock. Not that they go down to 20hz or shake the rafters but they stay true to form with taut bass. There is no discernible "flub". Having a 10" paper woofer from SEAS in a tuned, rear ported cabinet IMO most likely accounts for the difference. I used aftermarket outriggers with deep piercing brass spikes with the Adagios which ameliorated the problem but did not eliminate it. I spent untold hours getting the positioning just right with the Adagios. With the Devores, all you need to do is place them with their integral little wood block feet and play around for maybe an hour with positioning and the sound is glorious. At least in my room with my gear. 

Should they be a matter of taste?

Fact is they are.
Even if you take taste out of the equation, there is still the listening room variable. No two rooms are the same either and teh room largely determines what you hear with any particular speaker design.

LEt’s not even get into how differently the "best" speaker measured might sound off various amps. Speakers make no sound alone. It’s a team sport.

So one can say you want the most accurate speakers in theory and I would even agree but in practice that alone does not determine which one will choose or even work best in each particular case. So there you go.