"forward' vs "laid back" speakers


Over the past few months I’ve auditioned a number of speakers, with a view—eventually—to replacing my current ones. I’m content with their overall presentation, but they are getting long in the tooth and I’ve also been hankering for a little more bass.

Models that I’ve been able to hear (as for many of us, there are geographical challenges) are, in no particular order, B&W CM10, Dynaudio Excite X38, Vandersteen Treo, Sonus Faber Venere 3.0, Devore Orangutan O/93, Dynaudio Focus 380, Vienna Acoustics Beethoven Baby Grand Symphony Edition, Sonus Faber Liuto. Although not on my list, I also happened to hear along the way Totem Sttaf, Golden Ear Triton 2, Neat Classic Elite SX, and Vienna Acoustics Liszt.

It’s probably naïve of me to say this, but one thing that surprised me was how little my own listening impressions aligned with published reviews that I’d read of these speakers. Another thing that was a little surprising was my eventual ranking of them.

Two caveats in regard to the following observations: (1) de gustibus non est disputandum—these are purely my personal tastes and preferences (which seem to be in a minority); (2) all speakers were driven by highly competent and sometimes megabuck electronics, but I’m not going to get into every variable of the audition, otherwise this post will turn into a short novel.

The most salient characteristic (to me) is that the acoustic presentation of some of these speakers seemed quite forward (row D), whereas that of others was really quite laid back (row M). There was also, quite often, a second correlation between that forward presentation and a (relative) brightness in the treble. As far as I can tell, these features are often preferred and indeed seem to be aimed for in the voicing of many models during their development. To my ears, speakers in this category were the Treos, O/93s, and Veneres. Somewhere in the middle were the CM10s and the Liutos. A bit more laid back were the Dynaudios and the Vienna Acoustics.

I have to say that I like row M. I like the soundstage to start at the plane of the speakers’ drivers, and extend well behind them, with the speakers pulled well out into the room to achieve that sense of depth. And I don’t like bright.

The X38s, which I heard a while ago, were overall “polite”, and now I’m thinking they may not have been fully broken in. The Focus 380 sounded good but somehow a little homogenized or artificial; the timbre and the presentation were pleasant, but it was harder to forget that you were listening to a stereo system. The Baby Grands were a clear favorite among the models so far (only surpassed by the Liszts, as was to be expected). They were natural, relaxed, with all the characteristics I’ve been looking for, save that ultimate few hertz in bass extension.

I conclude from this that I am in a distinct minority. So be it. I haven’t been able to hear the VA Beethoven Concert Grands (that experience suggests should fit the bill), nor any models from Harbeth, Spendor, Silverline, Aerial, or Joseph Audio that I suspect—but cannot be sure—I might also like.

And so the search goes on; paradoxically, my experiences so far lead me to put little to no faith in reviews, but it’s only reviews (and on-line audio forums like this one) that allow me to construct a short-list of what to try to audition in the future.
128x128twoleftears
The best reference for time and phase correct speakers that I know if was in The Audio Perfectionist Journal. Its no longer in print, but it was also released in pdf, so you may still be able to find it. If I still had mine, I would post it for you, but I don't. All the good info is in the first 4 issues that they made available for no cost, as a promotion to get people to subscribe to the Journal. They just go into a level of detail about time and phase that I've never seen anywhere else. Its worth going out of your way to find.
yeah, Zd542, I found the exact link to one of the PDFs of the article you mentioned & it said "link not found". Looks like The Audio Perfectionist removed those articles.
In lieu of that, I offer 2 articles on the subject off Green Mountain Audio's website (no affiliation to this speaker manuf. Used to own his speakers & loved them but do not own his speakers any more. I do believe that he knows what he is doing tho' hence my repeated references to his articles & his products):

[ur]http://greenmountainaudio.com/speaker-time-phase-coherence/>http://greenmountainaudio.com/time-and-phase-coherence/[url]

[ur]http://greenmountainaudio.com/speaker-time-phase-coherence/


Twoleftears, I realize that you asked whether the speakers stated in your penultimate para were worthy of hearing or not & this discussion of time-coherence seems to be at a tangent (it is not once you read & understand), it's worth understanding why the speakers you heard are such a far cry from the rave reviews you read in the magazines & why you felt some speakers were row D & others row M. Once you understand, you might be able to answer your question; if not, you'll be able to make better judgements on speakers the next time around.
03-19-15: B_limo
Bombaywalla, Thanks for that informative response!
Thanks B_limo, glad that you found it useful.
If you have a chance give the Nola KO a try ;I moved from Soundlab M2's to them and am very pleased.
I run tubes but also put my Roland Model 6 Monoblocks on them and they sounded excellent with both.
What amps are you going to be using or will you be replacing them after you purchase the speakers?
I read you cleary- Twolftears.
I have been subscriber to both TAS & Stereophile since 1993. Over these years I have read too many articles on "great" speakers. (2) disappointments that come to my mind Aerial & Revel. I tried to get "into" these lines, sorry but, they are over-priced junk IME.

The remedy, is to go out into the marketplace and listen, listen, listen w/ your own ears!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!