My pet peeve: "revealing" speakers

twoleftearsRevealing = equivalent of cranking up the sharpness control on your TV.

Very good analogy.  As a professional photographer, I always have to know when the sharpness added is beneficial and when it is too much.  Knowing the same in audio is more difficult, since I react faster through my eyes than through my ears. 

erik_squires OP9,458 posts08-22-2020 1:32pmPS: My second pet peeve are reviewers who hear "revealing" and very colored speakers and call them "neutral" when they are clearly not.

If they are revealing? Sounds like they are revealing all the coloration the rest of your system is having a problem with. That is... if they are truly revealing.

I think what you describe about speakers also applies to live music in a concert hall or an opera house. The sound is colored by differences in acoustics in different seats, how many people are seated near you, and how absorptive the clothes they and you are wearing. Because you can only so much do far worrying about the ideal frequency response and imagining which is limited by the size of each group of instruments, the same is true for the pursuit of neutrality in speakers. The advice of choosing the sound you prefer is therefore more sound.I spent a couple of months more than a couple of years ago getting my Magnepan 0.7's the way I wanted. I also wasted time trying to get a subwoofer to work with Magnepans and it can't be done. Subwoofers draw either draw attention to themselves or the make no difference in the sound with Magnepns. A pair of DWM's is the only way to balance the lower frequencies to sound natural, something easy for me to do because I series wired each of the two elements in each DWM giving them an impedance of 8 Ohms. It was a simple matter to take the 4 Ohm outputs of the Hammond 1642SE transformer for the 0.7's and the 8 to 16 Ohm taps in phase for the DWM's. Of course it takes radio station transmitter triodes to power insensitive Magnepans but that is a different subject.

What is YOUR suggestion for the correct wording to use in order to describe undefined speakers you probably won't like?

So many putting words in my mouth.  Let me try to clarify.  Usually, when I read "revealing" the reviewer treats this without a down side. I'll give you a great, precise example.

The modern Dali speakers have a raised treble profile.  That's not opinion, that's measurement, and they treble runs significantly hotter. Now, it would be fine to call it "revealing."  In a sense, these are ideal low volume speakers as they will "reveal" more treble ant lower listening levels than another speaker, and if you like that (I do not) then that's a great match. However, if I were to review them I'd put that out there.  They are going to be better at low volumes than high volumes, but the average reviewer will just go nuts over the hot treble, say they've never heard such detail in their records, blah blah, without addressing the downside.

Again, these may be ideal for you, your hearing, your paper thin walls, whatever.  It is the use of "revealing" to call out something that is not neutral without further explanation.

Best,

E

@millercarbon. Can you compare the Moabs to the Von Schweikert Ultra 9 and 11? Those are the most revealing, listenable speakers I’ve heard (as have dozens of reviewers). Sure, they are a ton more expensive than Moabs. I haven’t heard Moabs but reviews indicate that they are best suited to solitary listening like Sander stats. That is not a negative, just a limitation whereas the VS speakers are made to sound great throughout the room. With friends and my wife, I need a speaker with a great sound throughout the room, so I am willing to pay more for that speaker feature. My current speakers provide a very good wide listening area but which still has about a 3’ wide best central seating sound.  The primary ideal for the VS speakers is produce the sound that the microphone hears which can be any sound/coloration but is revealing the source as recorded.