[Ultralight]

OK, my question for today.

I listen to a lot of acoustic music from solo instruments to ensembles to vocals.

With acoustic instruments such as a grand piano, there is great complexity in the produced tones as the soundboard vibrates in so many complex modes from the fundamental note onwards.  There is overtones, and then overtones of the overtones....  And these overtones often transition/modulate in and out very quickly with great subtlety.  It is the totality of all the overtones in all their complexity and speed that makes the acoustic instrument have a particular 'voice'.  I think this is called 'timbre'.

I have not had the privilege of listening much to uber $ rigs, so my question arises out of listening to speakers in the sub $2.5K range for extended time.

I realize that using words to describe sound is an imperfect exercise but here's an effort.

It seems to me that the most realistic reproduction of the timbre has much to do with the resolution of the speaker, transient speed and lack of large frequency spikes.  Most speakers I heard seem to be relatively decent in the frequency response.  What seem to really make the difference in an acoustic instrument sound natural is the transient speed and resolution of the speaker.  Without a natural timber for acoustic instruments such as pianos and violins, all the other factors such as soundstage width/depth, scale etc cannot compensate to make the instrument sound realistic.

By transient I mean how fast it can start and stop in response to an audio signal.  By resolution I mean the ability to communicate very subtle and fine details. 

So far, in my limited experience, it does seem that fast transient speed & high resolution come from speakers that may be termed more 'analytical' and less 'warm' or 'organic'.   

Questions:

1. Is it a necessary correlation that fast transients & high resolution result in an analytical sound?

2. And that a fast transient & high resolution often result in fatigue if listened long term ?

3. OR are there speakers out there that have very high transient/resolution but is acknowledged by most as warm, easy to listen to, non-fatiguing?  I've not encountered such speakers in the lower $ range under $2-3K but then I've probably only sampled 1/10th of 1% of all the speakers in this range - if not less.     

Thanks in advance for any insight.

UL

[JohnR]

These are all speaker-related threads you are starting. Can they be moved to Enclosures?

[FullRangeMan]

Auditory fatigue is a result of harmonics (odd) unpleasant to the brain, not from transients which result from music.

With music without (fast)transients one can also have ear fatigue.

[JLM]

First, there is no perfect speaker.  The perfect speaker would be something like 1/8 inch diameter single driver in free space capable of 10 - 40,000 Hz (perfectly flat in any room setup), 130 dB output, high efficiency, 120 dB of dynamic range, and perfect pistonic action (no surface breakup).  Of course no one knows how to do all that.


Yes, describing sonic attributes in words reminds me of trying to describe color to a blind man.


Serious listening (analysis) is fatiguing like any challenging mental exercise.  And it's hard to retain distinct aural memories, especially from a single session.

Listener fatigue is created by the brain trying (too hard) to make sense of what the ear hears.  This can be due to a number of factors: not hearing what you expect (such as FullRangeMan's harmonics comment); poor resolution; too damn loud; various types of distortion (including "warmth" or other "excessive" colorations); information overload (too much detail over too long a time); etc.


I've discovered analytical resolution has two natures: a high level of detail (a factor of source/amps) and solid imaging (primarily a function of your speakers/room setup).  Imaging provides a more "natural" kind of resolution in my mind (and reduces fatigue).

With wide brush strokes I can agree with you regarding dynamic/detailed/analytical versus warm/organic.  It's the designer's prerogative, skill, and budget on display.

I've never associated dynamic range (transient response) with fatigue, but the reverse is easy to listen too (non-fatiguing possibly to the point of putting you to sleep).

I believe poor dynamics could cause fatigue (again the brain trying to make sense out of what is expected versus what is heard), but a high level of detail does make the brain work harder to analyze more information.


I've found that high efficiency speakers typically exhibit colorations (lack of bass, quality of drivers replaced for higher efficiency, excessive compression of sound waves, cabinet/horn self-noise from higher pressures).

I've also found that studio monitors (work horses used to discover warts) typically have a dry (fatiguing) sound intended for near-field use (to minimize room effects) versus home audio speakers that are designed to entertain from across the room (less dynamic, trading resolution for warmth or other colorations).  But studio monitors are typically active designs (one channel of amplification per driver that is designed/matched to the driver, crossover upstream of amps) and as a result are much more dynamic, offer flat frequency response, and can produce unbelievably deep/full bass for their size.  So the ideal could be a non-fatiguing studio monitor (such as Adam A3X, Adam F5, Focal CMS 50, Neuman KH-120, PMC two two.5, or Quad 9AS).


In the real world, the ideal speaker has a swarm of 4 subs (off topic, but search AC for "swarm") as the only way to produce proper in-room bass, so the main speakers only needed 80 - 40,000 Hz constant directivity response.  It would be active design, quality drivers/amps (duh) that are in-phase with each other (to support good imaging).  And this ideal speaker would properly setup in a reasonably sized/shaped room that is acoustically isolated from outside noise.

I own and listen routinely to both good quality solid state pre/power amps and somewhat warmer tube integrated amp.  I'd hate to have everything sound warm, just like I'd hate to wear yellow sunglasses 100% of the time or put ketchup on everything I ate.  So I have the luxury of switching back and forth (the tube do sound a bit better, but the solid state can be left on as I pop in and out during the day).  I never intended to "go both ways" but if I could only keep one it'd be the tube amp and the solid state is worth more to me than I could sell it for.


And no JohnR, lets try to resist bouncing threads around.  IMO we do too much of that here and this topic belongs here as much as in the enclosure (or even open baffle) circles.

[Early B.]

Most so-called "high end" speakers can do what you're describing. Non-fatiguing speakers with high resolution and fast transients are what set them apart from the rest.

[FullRangeMan]

Good description JLM. I would mention Alnico and Full Range drivers without a xover as most free fatigue to my ears.

[JLM]

Good description JLM. I would mention Alnico and Full Range drivers without a xover as most free fatigue to my ears.

Didn't want to toot my own horn (speaking figuratively  ), but that's exactly what I have (Fostex F200A extended range drivers with F3 = 30 Hz and AlNiCo magnets in Bob Brines transmission line cabinets).   

[Guy 13]

Didn't want to toot my own horn (speaking figuratively  ), but that's exactly what I have (Fostex F200A extended range drivers with F3 = 30 Hz and AlNiCo magnets in Bob Brines transmission line cabinets).   

Hi JLM,
as usual, very good write up.
Thanks.

Guy 13

[Rusty Jefferson]

    So far, in my limited experience, it does seem that fast transient speed & high resolution come from speakers that may be termed more 'analytical' and less 'warm' or 'organic'. 

This may be true of dynamic speakers in the 2-3k price range, but is not necessarily so.  A good example of speakers with good transient response and an "organic" sound would be Quad 57/63s.

Questions:

1. Is it a necessary correlation that fast transients & high resolution result in an analytical sound?

2. And that a fast transient & high resolution often result in fatigue if listened long term ?

3. OR are there speakers out there that have very high transient/resolution but is acknowledged by most as warm, easy to listen to, non-fatiguing?  I've not encountered such speakers in the lower $ range under $2-3K but then I've probably only sampled 1/10th of 1% of all the speakers in this range - if not less.     

Thanks in advance for any insight.

UL

1.-No

2.-Definitely not.  Now, IMO your moving into equipment choices.

3.-Again, Quads would be a good example.  I don't own/use them but I think you should try to hear some.  See if you can find someone in your area who would be willing to demo them for you. You may not want a pair, but they could demonstrate there is not a need to give up transient response and detail retrieval to get non fatiguing characteristics (at not an outrageous price point), if matched well with electronics.  A couple years ago I posted an add in the wanted section of Audiogon for someone in my area who owned a particular model of Magepan Tympani speakers, and received a response inside a week.

[Quiet Earth]

UltraLight,

I think it is easy for an audiophile to get hung up on speakers. It's a learning curve for the new guy, and it's a problem that some of us never outgrow. We focus all of our attention and budget on the speakers, taking for granted the source component and the amplification.

It took me a long time to accept the idea that it should be the other way around. The speakers are at the end of the chain and there is really only so much that they are responible for. If the source and amplification are average or mediocre, the sound will be mediocre no matter what kind of speakers you have. On the other hand, put a decent 700 dollar pair of bookshelf speakers on a 20,000+ dollar front end and you will shake your head in disbelief. "I had no idea those speakers could sound so good. Play it again...."  I have tried this crazy experiment once at a high-end shop, and a couple of times at home. High quality, top notch source components and amplification retain most of their stellar sound on inexpensive speakers. Of course a better pair of speakers will make them sound even better, but that is not the point.

Now hook up a value-oriented front end and amplification to a 20,000 dollar pair of speakers and see how quickly you loose interest in listening to music. Sound familiar? Notice anyone (everyone?) approaching it this way and still looking for better sound?

 I think everything that comes before the speaker is more important than the speaker itself. The source component, the preamplifier and amplification are where you should be focussing these questions. They are excellent questions, but they need to be aimed at the entire system, not just the speakers.

[Photon46]

This thread demonstrates the lack of agreement among audiophiles as to the relative importance of components in the hierarchy of what matters to good sound. I'd wholeheartedly agree with Quiet Earth as to the importance of matching components and the consequences of mismatches. However, I think speakers are by far the most important part of the chain with regard to the quality and type of sound you are going to achieve. I agree with Fullrangeman that odd order harmonic distortions are a prime culprit in listening fatigue, but I also think there's more too it than that. JLM summarizes speaker design and outcomes very well IMO. I'd long thought that fast transient speed was correlated with a tendency for a speaker to sound analytical and fatiguing, but that was just because I hadn't heard a broad enough range of designs. After hearing what Tidal is able to achieve with their dynamic speakers: very high resolution using ceramic drivers but yet having very little tendency to induce listening fatigue (at least to my & my wife's ears,) we took a big financial plunge and bought a pair of Piano Ceras. Tidal pays a lot of attention to phase coherence in their designs and that seems to allow both high resolution and low listening fatigue. Once you've heard speakers that can do both, it does reorient your opinions about what is possible. Now if only that technology didn't cost so much    Fullrangeman is probably right about crossovers being a major source of problems and listener fatigue. The crossover design and expensive components in Tidal's crossovers are one the major reasons for their high price tags.

[DaveC113]

QE, I agree up to a point. Speakers must be selected to work with the listening environment as well as the user's personal preferences as to what compromises are appropriate, in that way they are the most important choice to make. My experience is that any kind of speaker can sound great with great implementation, so you simply need to choose what kind of speaker fits your needs the best, then choose an amp that works well with those speakers, and the best source you can afford to go with it. It is a system so there must be balance... don't spend all your budget on any one aspect, everything is important.

Listening fatigue can come from MANY places, do not automatically blame the speakers! Dirty AC power and bad cables can hobble the best systems, poor source and amplification can make it so your speakers never come close to their potential. Choosing the best balance of components, cables and power distribution for a particular set of speakers and budget in order to maximize the performance of the system is the name of the game... have fun! 

[*Scotty*]

I kind of adhere to the GIGO rule. Even the best loudspeaker can only reproduce what it is fed   A few years ago metal dome tweeters with a pronounced oil can resonance could be blamed for causing listening fatigue, lately metal cone midranges have shown themselves to be problematic in some designs.
 The causes of listener fatigue are many and the entire system as a whole has to be evaluated when trying to mitigate the problem. A haphazard approach will likely prove to be an expensive exercise in whack-a-mole.
 Measuring the systems frequency response at the listening position with a program such as REW may reveal a response anomaly that could be notched out with equalization.
 Many albums have instruments that have been close miked which always exaggerates the upper end of the frequency spectrum, If these program sources are accurately reproduced then it is very easy to get listening fatigue if the system measures flat to 20kHz at the listening position.
 Every system will have a unique set of problems to be solved and unfortunately will likely require a solution specific to that system.
Scotty

[bladesmith]

UltraLight,

I think it is easy for an audiophile to get hung up on speakers. It's a learning curve for the new guy, and it's a problem that some of us never outgrow. We focus all of our attention and budget on the speakers, taking for granted the source component and the amplification.

It took me a long time to accept the idea that it should be the other way around. The speakers are at the end of the chain and there is really only so much that they are responible for. If the source and amplification are average or mediocre, the sound will be mediocre no matter what kind of speakers you have. On the other hand, put a decent 700 dollar pair of bookshelf speakers on a 20,000+ dollar front end and you will shake your head in disbelief. "I had no idea those speakers could sound so good. Play it again...."  I have tried this crazy experiment once at a high-end shop, and a couple of times at home. High quality, top notch source components and amplification retain most of their stellar sound on inexpensive speakers. Of course a better pair of speakers will make them sound even better, but that is not the point.

Now hook up a value-oriented front end and amplification to a 20,000 dollar pair of speakers and see how quickly you loose interest in listening to music. Sound familiar? Notice anyone (everyone?) approaching it this way and still looking for better sound?

 I think everything that comes before the speaker is more important than the speaker itself. The source component, the preamplifier and amplification are where you should be focussing these questions. They are excellent questions, but they need to be aimed at the entire system, not just the speakers.

Very well said...

[Early B.]

I think everything that comes before the speaker is more important than the speaker itself.

I've always wanted to say this, but was never bold enough to put it on an audio forum. 

The speaker's job is to give you what it received. If it gets crap, it spits crap.     

[Tyson]

The room has a huge effect on the overall sound you hear.  A hard, flat, echo-y room will give you fatiguing sound.  And the crazy bass modes will give headaches.  JLM is right, highly directional speakers are good because they minimize room interaction.  Same with the swarm of subs - minimized room nastiness.  Open Baffle speakers do the same thing, just a bit differently. 

[FullRangeMan]

Not with planars. Directional speakers will do small soundstage.
On this road an anechoic chamber is a ideal room.

[DaveC113]

Not with planars. Directional speakers will do small soundstage.
On this road an anechoic chamber is a ideal room.

No way, they are capable of throwing a HUGE soundstage and imaging can be better without the short reflections.

I am currently listening to full range drivers in a 20" diameter waveguide and the results are quite good, soundstage size and imaging are improved, in fact the imaging is better than any other speaker I have ever heard.

What you sacrifice is a sense of spaciousness that is easy to forget about after hearing the improvements. 

In any case the directionality of the speaker, size of the room and acoustic treatments must all be considered as a whole.

[kernelbob]

I find that wide dispersion speakers generate more realistic results than directional systems.  I have a pretty live room, but use a dozen GIK dispersion units, three stacked sets per side at the speakers' first reflection points.  I use a pair of subwoofers at the back of the room, about 48 feet from the fronts of the speakers with a 150 degree phase offset dialed in for the front/rear woofer overlap frequency.  The system has a wide horizontal range of very good listening positions and much reduced bass room nodes.

[DaveC113]

I find that wide dispersion speakers generate more realistic results than directional systems.  I have a pretty live room, but use a dozen GIK dispersion units, three stacked sets per side at the speakers' first reflection points.  I use a pair of subwoofers at the back of the room, about 48 feet from the fronts of the speakers with a 150 degree phase offset dialed in for the front/rear woofer overlap frequency.  The system has a wide horizontao range of very good listening positions and much reduced bass room nodes.

This is more a result of your room than the speaker imo. I think what is needed is  proper balance of direct to reflected sound, and the proper amount varies with personal preference and can be achieved in different ways, either with directive speaker/less damped room or wide dispersion/more damping. The biggest benefit of directivity is in reducing or eliminating short reflections (floor or close sidewall) and reducing the need for room treatments.