2. speakers
  3. 149378-2227

Tone, Tone, Tone !


I was reminded again today, as I often am, about my priorities for any speaker that I will own.

I was reminded by listening to a pair of $20,000 speakers, almost full range. They did imaging. They did dynamics.They did detail.

But I sat there unmoved.

Came home and played a number of the same tracks on a pair of speakers I currently have set up in my main system - a tiny lil’ Chihuahua-sized pair of Spendor S 3/5s.


And I was in heaven.

I just couldn’t tear myself away from listening.

Why?

Tone.

The Spendors satisfy my ears (MY ears!) in reproducing music with a gorgeous, organic tone that sounds so "right.". It’s like a tonal massage directly o my auditory system. Strings are silky and illuminated, saxes so warm and reedy, snares have that papery "pop," cymbals that brassy overtone, acoustic guitars have that just-right sparkle and warmth. Voices sound fleshy and human.

In no way do I mean to say the Spendors are objectively "correct" or that anyone else should, or would, share the opinion I had between those two speakers. I’m just saying it’s often experiences like this that re-enforce how deeply important "the right tone/timbral quality" is for me. It’s job one that any speaker has to pass. I’ll listen to music on any speaker as background. But to get me to sit down and listen...gotta have that seductive tone.


Of course that’s only one characteristic I value. Others near the top of the list is "palpability/density," texture, dynamics.

But I’d take those teeny little Spendors over those big expensive speakers every day of the week, due to my own priorities.

Which brings me to throwing out the question to others: What are YOUR priorities in a speaker, especially if you had to pick the one that makes-or-brakes your desire to own the speaker?

Do you have any modest "giant killers" that at least to your way of thinking satisfy you much more than any number of really expensive speakers?



prof
8th-note
411 posts
 
The term "tone" gets close to the point for me but I use the word, "coherence." Some speakers give me the feeling of presenting the music as a whole and others seem to break the music down to its component parts. I've listened to several pairs of megabuck Wilsons and they are extremely detailed but they don't sound like music to me. Same with the top model Martin Logan. On the other hand my vintage Mirage M3si's don't provide the extreme level of micro detail but I can close my eyes and imagine I have a band or orchestra in front of me. They don't call attention to themselves or certain components of the music. They fill the room with a gorgeous image of what I think the recording/mixing engineer was shooting for.
audioman58's avatar
audioman58
4,173 posts
 
I have learned through many years any speaker that sounds good 
will sound at least 10-20% better just by upgrading the wiring and rebuild the Xover with Good quality parts 90% of speakers even at 12kor more  rarely put top quality capacitors,resistors inductors ,and yes you get what you pay for . Duelund cast capacitors way too expensive and too big unless you have a Big speaker or external Xoverand the $$. On average $1-2k in parts can get you a Exceptional Xover 
that will transform your speakers.for the majority use Solen or lower grade Clarity or Mundorf ,not their top stuff.I have been doing this for almost 20 years even with your electronics ,it pays big dividends sonicly.
I rewired my whole system including electronics with VH Audio
solid Core -OCC Teflon copper wire,and only Copper connections throughout, most companies use gold over Brass which is 4x less conductive and bright compared. it made a Huge difference 
in system synergy ,to complement the Xover upgrade. These are 
things that cost say $3k in total but better then if I spent 3-4 x that 
for cable markup alone in name brand  cables is 4-5x  at least.
knowing the quality of the wire and geometry  is the main thing 
then just taking the time to do it and save $1,000s in the process.
audition__audio
1,499 posts
 
I refer to the entire Harbeth line although I have never heard these speakers in my home. I did, I think, get a very good idea of how they sounded at shows and at a few dealers. I am sure they can sound better but the fundamental "house" is pretty hard to forget.

All Harbeths I have heard all have a tendency to homogenize material. I hate the cabinets and take issue with the designers belief in this being an effective energy dissipation method. Essentially you have a big vibrating box with a large surface area. I dont like large front baffles and I shouldnt have to explain why these are not a good thing. Feel that first order crossovers are best and am guessing a 2nd or 3rd order is used by Harbeth. I certainly dont see any attention paid to time alignment. In addition dont like ported speakers and also feel no science exists that supports this type of design other than a pleasant hump, increased efficiency and a reduction in cabinet size.

So what I see is a bunch of speaker design "no-nos" all of which coincidentally reduce the production cost that are then presented as a viable design methodology that doesnt make sense to me and also runs counter to the design philosophies from speakers that I think sound best.

I am not knocking anyone that likes this type of sound. But it is safe to say that those of you that like Harbeths hear things in a very different way than I. Who is to say which of us is correct?






melvinjames
416 posts
 
I'm pretty fond of my Omega Super 3i Monitors. These are Omega's entry-level loudspeaker ($695). They are a tube-friendly single-driver design efficient enough to sound great with 2 WPC. Tone, vocals, and coherence is wonderful (no crossover to muck up the sound). I think they're a true bargain. Add a sub for the lower registers. SET/single-driver loudspeaker systems certainly aren't for everyone but I can honestly say I never been happier.
prof OP
3,474 posts
 

jsautter

So what I see is a bunch of speaker design "no-nos"

Which somehow add up to very good measured performance - very often more neutral than the vast majority of measurements found for other speakers.  Take a look even at JA's measurements for the Harbeth Monitor 30.2 40th An. edition.  Beautifully even tonal balance, even the bass "maximally damped" design, cabinet resonances there but "low in level" by JA's comment.  (A bit of a bass bump there, but typical for measurements of most speakers, including my beloved Thiel 3.7s, and even my sealed-box Spendor 3/5s).

Totally disagree that the Harbeths homogenize instruments - I find the opposite (relative to loudspeakers in general - every loudspeaker to my ear homogenizes to some degree, but I find the Harbeths among the most convincing, tonally).  

Anyway, as you say, horses for courses.  No reason you have to like them.  But I do think that once we start making claims about speakers being "colored" or "not neutral enough" etc we are in to objective-claims territory. 

Btw, I'm also a fan of time/phase coherent speakers as I own Thiel 2.7 speakers as well. I just find different speaker designs do one or another thing like like better - no perfect speaker.




More to discover