Any time we start chatting terms in this hobby things get dicey.
I know what
I mean when I mine the collective lexicon to explain what I hear, as do all of us. This would be peachy keen if my teleporter were operational so we could discuss these things related to
common experience instead of individual as it is now.
Stereophile has done an admirable job of defining terms in their Glossary, which could be very useful if it were used consistently but it's not, for better or worse.
Some will say "hi-fi" is a blanket term describing our hobby and the purpose of this site. However, I doubt many among us would deny that within this group lie numerous subcategories. "The pie" could be cut in many different ways, with varying degrees of inaccuracy. Keeping it short, one such group follows "musicality".
We know that no aspect of "hi-fi" is reality and we all make compromises. What we are willing to give up and what values we hold dear define our path through this maze. Generalizing, the musicality guys will give up ultimate volume, 20 hz bass extension, perfectly flat frequency response, and
detail to achieve coherency, dynamic expression, and midrange beauty. They might own horns, single drivers, or some other high-efficiency design allowing simple and small amplifiers. They probably like tubes. Some use "hi-fi" in a negative light, as in un-musical.
The Definition 1.5s and Pros are strong speakers in the musicality department. They don't have the tinkliest tweeters or big-rockin' bass punch but their midrange is beautiful, they are incredibly expressive, and dynamically true. Their supertweeters add to the mix but are not on par with the best. The bass range is great down low but on a well-mixed rock album didn't give the kick-drum thump of other speakers which especially ported speakers do very well.
Compromises? Yes, of course. Acceptable? To me, absolutely. Their strengths play to my values and fit me brilliantly.
The Def. 2s are far better with sparkle on top and sound like a very good conventional speaker in the stratosphere. Low bass has improved, where the Pros were already stellar but midbass where the Pros were weak has leapt to be on-par with the low bass, assuming proper tuning.
These elements overcome limitations with the earlier models and reduce the number of potential complaints folks from "other" groups would have with them. At the same time, they are better from a musicality perspective, requiring fewer compromises on behalf of the owner.
Forgive the gross simplifications, simply made to demonstrate a point. All observations are based on ONE pair of 1.5s, ONE pair of Pros, and ONE pair of 2s in ONE room. Add salt to taste. I hope the longwinded dribble clarifies the earlier statement.
